DOCSLIB.ORG

Feti-Dp: a Dual–Primal Unified Feti Method—Part I 1525

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feti-Dp: a Dual–Primal Unified Feti Method—Part I 1525 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 50:1523–1544 FETI-DP: a dual–primal uniÿed FETI method—part I: A faster alternative to the two-level FETI method Charbel Farhat,1;∗;† Michel Lesoinne,1 Patrick LeTallec,2 Kendall Pierson1 and Daniel Rixen3 1Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences and Center for Aerospace Structures; University of Colorado at Boulder; Boulder; CO 80309-0429; U.S.A. 2Universiteà de Paris Dauphine and Ecole Polytechnique; 91 128 Palaiseau Cedex; France 3LTAS; UniversitedeLià ege ; Rue Ernest Solvay; 21; B-4000 Liege ; Belgium SUMMARY The FETI method and its two-level extension (FETI-2) are two numerically scalable domain decomposition methods with Lagrange multipliers for the iterative solution of second-order solid mechanics and fourth-order beam, plate and shell structural problems, respectively.The FETI-2 method distinguishes itself from the basic or one-level FETI method by a second set of Lagrange multipliers that are introduced at the subdomain cross-points to enforce at each iteration the exact continuity of a subset of the displacement ÿeld at these speciÿc locations. In this paper, we present a dual–primal formulation of the FETI-2 concept that eliminates the need for that second set of Lagrange multipliers, and uniÿes all previously developed one-level and two-level FETI algorithms into a single dual–primal FETI-DP method. We show that this new FETI-DP method is numerically scalable for both second-order and fourth-order problems. We also show that it is more robust and more computationally ecient than existing FETI solvers, particularly when the number of subdomains and=or processors is very large. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY WORDS: domain decomposition; numerical scalability; iterative methods 1. BACKGROUND The ÿnite element tearing and interconnecting (FETI) methods are a family of domain decompo- sition (DD) algorithms with Lagrange multipliers that have been developed during the last decade for the fast sequential and parallel iterative solution of large-scale systems of equations arising from the ÿnite element discretization of partial di erential equations. From a mechanical viewpoint, a FETI method can be viewed as an iterative substructuring method where Lagrange multipliers are introduced at the substructure interfaces to enforce the continuity of the displacement ÿeld. By ∗Correspondence to: Charbel Farhat, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Center for Aerospace Structures, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0429, U.S.A. †E-mail: [email protected] Contract=grant sponsor: Sandia National Laboratories; contract=grant number: BD-2435 Contract=grant sponsor: Department of Energy; contract=grant number: B347880=W-740-ENG-48 Contract=grant sponsor: INRIA Received 16 August 1999 Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 10 May 2000 1524 C. FARHAT ET AL. construction, equilibrium is satisÿed at each iteration in each substructure. However, the continuity condition is met only at convergence. From a mathematical viewpoint, each FETI method can be viewed as a two-step preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) algorithm where subdomain problems with Dirichlet boundary conditions are solved in the preconditioning step, and related subdomain problems with Neumann boundary conditions are solved in a second step to compute residuals. The basic FETI method, also known as the one-level FETI method, or simply the FETI method, was developed in References [1–5] together with its ‘lumped’ and ‘Dirichlet’ preconditioners, and extended in Reference [4] to substructure problems with non-matching interfaces. Its optimal con- vergence properties for second-order elliptic problems (i.e. thermal, structural, and solid mechanics problems discretized by plane stress=strain and=or brick elements) were ÿrst exposed numerically in Reference [5], then mathematically established in Reference [6]. More speciÿcally, it was proved in Reference [6] that when the basic FETI method is equipped with the Dirichlet preconditioner [5] and applied to second-order elliptic problems, the condition number Ä of its interface problem grows asymptotically as Ä = O(1 + logm(H=h));m63 (1) where h and H denote, respectively, the mesh and subdomain sizes. The conditioning result (1), which was later proved to hold also with m =2[7; 8], demonstrates that the FETI method is numerically scalable with respect to both the problem size and number of subdomains. Indeed, from Equation (1) it can be concluded that 2 P1. If for a ÿxed number of subdomains Ns (Ns = O(1=H ) in two dimensions and Ns = O(1=H 3) in three dimensions) the problem size is increased (O(1=h2) in two dimensions and O(1=h3) in three dimensions), the condition number of the FETI method grows asymp- totically only as log2 1=h. In other words, one can expect the FETI method to solve large- scale problems in a similar number of iterations as small-scale problems. P2. If for a ÿxed problem size the number of subdomains is increased—for example, for parallel processing purposes or in order to reduce the operation count of each iteration—the iteration count of the FETI method can be expected to decrease. P3. If the size of the subdomain problem, which can be characterized by H=h, is kept constant and the total size of the problem is increased by increasing the number of subdomains— as is often done when the number of processors of a given parallel computing platform is increased—the condition number of the FETI method remains constant. This property makes it possible for a well-implemented FETI method to solve an n-times larger problem on an n-times larger machine in a constant amount of CPU time. The three numerical scalability properties highlighted above are also veriÿed in practice for complex problems (for example, see References [5; 9; 10] and the references cited therein). For a suciently large problem, the parallel scalability of the FETI method—that is, its ability to deliver a speed-up that grows reasonably well with the number of processors (almost linearly)—depends on the parallel implementation of some key computational kernels of this DD method, particularly the solution of the associated ‘coarse’ problems [10], and some key characteristics of the target parallel hardware such as memory bandwidth and cache management. The parallel scalability of the FETI method, and its ability to solve an n-times larger problem on an n-times larger machine in a constant amount of CPU time have been recently demonstrated on a 1000-processor conÿguration of the ASCI Option Red massively parallel machine installed at the Sandia National Laboratories. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 50:1523–1544 FETI-DP: A DUAL–PRIMAL UNIFIED FETI METHOD—PART I 1525 The FETI method has been successfully extended to problems with multiple and=or repeated right-hand sides [11; 12], component mode synthesis [13], transient response analysis [14], non- linear solution strategies [15–17], free-vibration analysis [18], problems with multipoint constraints [19], problems with severe heterogeneities such as large discontinuities in material properties [20], and most recently acoustic scattering problems [21; 22]. It has also inspired many variants, and other extensions and applications, among which we note those described in [23–28]. All these vari- ants share the same lumped and Dirichlet preconditioners and the same coarse problem constructed with the rigid body modes of the oating subdomains, all of which were originally developed for the FETI method. A distinctive feature of the FETI method is its rigid-body-based auxiliary problem that is nat- urally derived from the subdomain equations of equilibrium [1–3]. This auxiliary problem must be solved twice at each PCG iteration. Because its size is in general as small as 3Ns in two dimensions and 6Ns in three dimensions, this problem is referred to as a ‘coarse’ problem. In Ref- erences [5; 6], it was shown that for second-order partial di erential equations, this coarse problem is the main reason why the FETI method is numerically scalable with respect to the number of subdomains. The inexpensive solution at each PCG iteration of this coarse problem propagates the error globally and accelerates convergence. For transient dynamics applications, a oating subdomain has a singular static sti ness matrix but a non-singular dynamic sti ness matrix. Hence, the subdomain equations of dynamic equilibrium do not naturally lead to any coarse problem. For this reason, a new coarsening procedure was designed in Reference [14] for addressing the solution of second-order transient dynamic problems by a numerically scalable FETI method. This procedure had led to a new FETI coarse problem for time-dependent applications that is also based on the null spaces of the subdomain static sti ness matrices, but which has a di erent expression than the FETI coarse problem for static applications and therefore requires a di erent computer implementation. For fourth-order plate and shell problems, the basic FETI method is not numerically scalable, and therefore is not as performing as for second-order problems. However, it was shown in References [29–31] that if at each PCG iteration the exact continuity of the (transverse) displacement ÿeld is enforced at the subdomain crosspoints, the FETI method becomes numerically scalable also for fourth-order (plate) and shell problems. Such a condition can be satisÿed by introducing a set of additional Lagrange multipliers at the subdomain crosspoints, and determining their values at each PCG iteration by solving another coarse problem that is based on both the subdomain rigid body and ‘corner’ modes. Because this new coarse problem can be expressed as the projection on a subspace of the interface problem associated with the basic FETI method, the resulting DD method was called in References [30; 31] the two-level FETI method (FETI-2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics1
    SAND2002 - 0529 Unlimited Release Printed March 2002 Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics1 William L. Oberkampf Validation and Uncertainty Estimation Department Timothy G. Trucano Optimization and Uncertainty Estimation Department Sandia National Laboratories P. O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Abstract Verification and validation (V&V) are the primary means to assess accuracy and reliability in computational simulations. This paper presents an extensive review of the literature in V&V in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), discusses methods and procedures for assessing V&V, and develops a number of extensions to existing ideas. The review of the development of V&V terminology and methodology points out the contributions from members of the operations research, statistics, and CFD communities. Fundamental issues in V&V are addressed, such as code verification versus solution verification, model validation versus solution validation, the distinction between error and uncertainty, conceptual sources of error and uncertainty, and the relationship between validation and prediction. The fundamental strategy of verification is the identification and quantification of errors in the computational model and its solution. In verification activities, the accuracy of a computational solution is primarily measured relative to two types of highly accurate solutions: analytical solutions and highly accurate numerical solutions. Methods for determining the accuracy of numerical solutions are presented and the importance of software testing during verification activities is emphasized. The fundamental strategy of 1Accepted for publication in the review journal Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 3 validation is to assess how accurately the computational results compare with the experimental data, with quantified error and uncertainty estimates for both.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Physics * Cruz a Editorial Office, Pure and Applied Physics, India
    Research & Reviews: Journal of Pure and Applied Physics e-ISSN:2320-2459 p-ISSN:2347-2316 Computational Physics * Cruz A Editorial Office, Pure and Applied Physics, India Editorial Note Received date: 21/02/2021 *For Correspondence Accepted date: 23/02/2021 Published date: 28/02/2021 Andrew Cruz, Computational Physics, Editorial Office, Pure and Applied Physics, India. E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL NOTE Computational physics is that the study and implementation of numerical analysis to unravel problems in physics that a quantitative theory already exists. Historically, computational physics was the primary application of recent computers in science, and is now a subset of computational science. It is sometimes considered a sub discipline (or offshoot) of theoretical physics, but others consider it an intermediate branch between theoretical and experimental physics-a neighbourhood of study which supplements both theory and experiment. Computational physics problems are generally very difficult to unravel exactly. This is often thanks to several (mathematical) reasons: lack of algebraic and/or analytic solvability, complexity, and chaos. For example, even apparently simple problems, like calculating the wave function of an electron orbiting an atom during a strong field (Stark effect), may require great effort to formulate a practical algorithm (if one are often found); other cruder or brute-force techniques, like graphical methods or root finding, could also be required. On the more advanced side, mathematical perturbation theory is additionally sometimes used (a working is shown for this particular example here). In addition, the computational cost and computational complexity for many-body problems (and their classical counterparts) tend to grow quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast and Efficient MATLAB-Based MPM Solver
    Fast and efficient MATLAB-based MPM solver (fMPMM-solver v1.1) Emmanuel Wyser1, Yury Alkhimenkov1,2,3, Michel Jaboyedoff1,2, and Yury Y. Podladchikov1,2,3 1Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 2Swiss Geocomputing Centre, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 3Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia Correspondence: Emmanuel Wyser ([email protected]) Abstract. We present an efficient MATLAB-based implementation of the material point method (MPM) and its most recent variants. MPM has gained popularity over the last decade, especially for problems in solid mechanics in which large defor- mations are involved, i.e., cantilever beam problems, granular collapses, and even large-scale snow avalanches. Although its numerical accuracy is lower than that of the widely accepted finite element method (FEM), MPM has been proven useful 5 in overcoming some of the limitations of FEM, such as excessive mesh distortions. We demonstrate that MATLAB is an ef- ficient high-level language for MPM implementations that solve elasto-dynamic and elasto-plastic problems. We accelerate the MATLAB-based implementation of MPM method by using the numerical techniques recently developed for FEM opti- mization in MATLAB. These techniques include vectorisation, the usage of native MATLAB functions, the maintenance of optimal RAM-to-cache communication, and others. We validate our in-house code with classical MPM benchmarks including 10 i) the elastic collapse under self-weight of a column, ii) the elastic cantilever beam problem, and iii) existing experimental and numerical results, i.e., granular collapses and slumping mechanics respectively. We report a performance gain by a factor of 28 for a vectorised code compared to a classical iterative version.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Mechanics Featuring Matlab DRAFT EDITION $Revision: 1.52
    Computational Mechanics featuring Matlab DRAFT EDITION $Revision: 1.52 Richard Sonnenfeld November 4, 2013 c 2012 Richard Sonnenfeld Published by: New Mexico Tech Press All rights reserved Contents 0.1 Introduction–forthestudent. i 0.1.1 Howtoreadthisbook..................... i 0.1.2 Extra credit for corrections! . i 0.1.3 Why computer programming in physics . ii 0.1.4 Otherreferences ........................ ii 0.2 Introduction – for the instructor . iii 0.2.1 To the instructor who is new to Matlab or programming . iii 0.2.2 Intended audience . iii 0.2.3 Coursedesign.......................... iv 0.2.3.1 Lecture portion . iv 0.2.3.2 Lab portion . iv 0.2.3.3 Facilities required . v 0.3 Featuresofthisbook.......................... v 0.3.1 Generalfeatures ........................ v 0.3.2 Course timing . vi 0.3.3 Projects............................. vi 0.3.4 Additional topics . vii 0.3.5 Chapterbychaptercontent . vii 1 Hello World! 1 1.1 Stepsto“HelloWorld”......................... 1 1.2 “HelloWorld”.............................. 1 1.3 Gettinghelp............................... 2 1.4 BrowsingHelp ............................. 3 1.5 Matlab interactivemode ........................ 3 1.6 Operatorsandhowtocalculate . 5 1.6.0.1 Exercise 2A . 6 1.6.0.2 Exercise 2B . 6 1.6.0.3 Exercise 2C . 6 1.7 VariablesandMemory ......................... 6 1.7.1 “=”doesnotmean“Equal”. 7 1.7.2 VariableTypes ......................... 8 3 4 CONTENTS 1.7.3 Scientific Notation . 8 1.8 Usingformattedoutput ........................ 8 1.9 Combiningshortscripts . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 1.9.1 script and m-file ........................ 12 1.10 Afirstinteractiveprogram. 12 1.11 ∗Variables,Memory,andbinarycodes . 12 1.12 Review of commands introduced in this chapter . 14 1.13 EndofChapterProblems . 14 2 IWillnotThrowMassiveProjectilesinClass 17 2.1 Getting homework done quickly with loops .
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Boyce E
    Curriculum Vitae Boyce E. Griffith Assistant Professor of Mathematics Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering Member, McAllister Heart Institute The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Contact Information Department of Mathematics Phillips Hall, Campus Box 3250 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3250 email: [email protected] web: http://griffith.web.unc.edu phone: 919.962.7110 fax: 919.962.2568 Research Interests Mathematical and computational methods in medicine and biology; computer simulation in physiology, especially cardiovascular mechanics and fluid-structure interaction, cardiac electrophysiology, and cardiac electro-mechanical coupling; multiscale physiological models; medical devices; adaptive numerical methods; and scientific computing Education Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, New York Ph.D. in Mathematics, September 2005 Rice University, Houston, Texas B.A. in Computational and Applied Mathematics and in Mathematics, May 2000 B.S. in Computer Science, May 2000 Professional Experience Employment 2014–present Assistant Professor of Mathematics (tenure track), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2012–2014 Assistant Professor of Medicine and Mathematics (tenure track), New York University 2008–2012 Assistant Professor of Medicine (tenure track), New York University 2006–2008 American Heart Association Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University 2005–2006 Courant Instructor, Department of Mathematics,
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Monte Carlo Method in Grid Computing and Allied Fields
    International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET) Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2014 Application of Monte Carlo method in Grid Computing and Allied Fields Manas kumar Yogi, Vijaya kranthi chinthala Abstract— This paper presents the strategy involved in Monte Carlo Method and how it impacts the functionality of many dependable application domains like Stock Markets, (1) Nuclear reactors, Gaming Industry, Biological fields. The huge benefits outweigh the small number of challenges posed while This approximation tends towards the exact value of the area simulation with this method. Monte Carlo methods are of the circle as the number of points N tends to infinity, i.e., generally useful for tools to model empirical studies where complex input nature demands precision handling. Index Terms—Monte Carlo, Random ,Generator, (2) 2 simulation, Grid. The value of π is then obtained with the relation π = Acircle/r . I. INTRODUCTION The Monte Carlo method is intensively used in various II. MECHANISM FOR APPLYING MONTE CARLO METHOD IN areas of scientific research. From computational physics to GRID COMPUTING fluid dynamics, it has seen exponential growth with the A. Random Number Generator introduction of computationally powerful computers. Truly, the Monte Carlo method is of great interest for solving The Monte Carlo method uses the stochastic landing of systems with unknown analytical solutions. In the real world, points in the square to find the area of the circle. This area more often than not, straight forward analytical solutions are tends towards the exact value of the area of the circle as the number of points tends towards infinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Stochastic Computational Mechanics
    AMAS COURSE ON RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION RB0'03- (PP.99-156) -WARSAW, SEPTEMBER 15-18, 2003 Stochastic computational mechanics C. BUCHER and M. MACKE Bauhaus-University Weimar Institute of Structural Mechanics Marienstrasse. 15, D-99421 Weimar, Germany christian.bucher~bauing.uni-weimar.de Recent methods in computational structural mechanics put more emphasis on the consideration of uncertainties of loads and structural properties within the analysis. In most cases, these methods rely heavily on probability theory and statistics. Computational procedures for an efficient handling of random phe­ nomena in structural mechanics have been developed over the last few decades. This includes specific concepts for stochastic finite elements which are based on the possibly very close relation between structural and statistical/stochastic data. The paper starts with a description of essential elements from probability the­ ory. This includes random variables, random vectors, and random fields. Special emphasis is then put on outlining methods to determine structural failure prob­ abilities under static and dynamic loading conditions. These methods cover ac­ curate methods such as Monte Carlo simulation as well as approximate methods such as the first order reliability method or the response surface method. Several numerical examples from different areas of structural mechanics demonstrate the application of these methods. Key words: Reliability analysis, nonlinear structu.rol analysis, stochastic mechan­ ics, rondom fields, computational mechanics, stochastic finite elements. 1. Introduction Numerical methods for structural analysis have been developed quite sub­ stantially over the last decades. In particular, finite element methods and closely related approximations have become state of the art. The modeling capabilities and the solution possibilities lead, on the one hand, to an in­ creasing refinement allowing for more and more details to be captured in the analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics Computational Physics
    Quantum Mechanics_Computational physics Computational physics is the study and implementation of Numerical analysis to solve problems in physics for which a quantitative theory already exists.[1] Historically, computational physics was the first application of modern computers in science, and is now a subset of computational science.[2] It is sometimes regarded as a subdiscipline (or offshoot) of theoretical physics, but others consider it an intermediate branch between theoretical and experimental physics, a third way that supplements theory and experiment. Overview In physics, different theories based on mathematical models provide very precise predictions on how systems behave. Unfortunately, it is often the case that solving the mathematical model for a particular system in order to produce a useful prediction is not feasible. This can occur, for instance, when the solution does not have a closed- form expression, or is too complicated. In such cases, numerical approximations are required. Computational physics is the subject that deals with these numerical approximations: the approximation of the solution is written as a finite (and typically large) number of simple mathematical operations (algorithm), and a computer is used to perform these operations and compute an approximated solution and respective error.[1] Challenges in computational physics Physics problems are in general very difficult to solve exactly. This is due to several (mathematical) reasons: lack of algebraic and/or analytic solubility, complexity and chaos. For example - even apparently simple problems, such as calculating the wavefunction of an electron orbiting an atom in a strong electric field (Stark effect), may require great effort to formulate a practical algorithm (if one can be found); other cruder or brute-force techniques, such as graphical methods or root finding, may be required.
    [Show full text]
  • The Multiscale Damage Mechanics in Objected-Oriented Fortran Framework
    The Multiscale Damage Mechanics in Objected-oriented Fortran Framework Zifeng Yuan Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Columbia University 2016 ©2016 Zifeng Yuan All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT The Multiscale Damage Mechanics in Objected-oriented Fortran Framework Zifeng Yuan We develop a dual-purpose damage model (DPDM) that can simultaneously model intralayer damage (ply failure) and interlayer damage (delamination) as an alternative to conventional practices that models ply failure by continuum damage mechanics (CDM) and delamination by cohesive elements. From purely computational point of view, if successful, the proposed approach will significantly reduce computational cost by eliminating the need for having double nodes at ply interfaces. At the core, DPDM is based on the regularized continuum damage mechanics approach with vectorial representation of damage and ellipsoidal damage surface. Shear correction factors are introduced to match the mixed mode fracture toughness of an analytical cohesive zone model. A predictor-corrector local-nonlocal regularization scheme, which treats intralayer portion of damage as nonlocal and interlayer damage as local, is developed and verified. Two variants of the DPDM are studied: a single- and two- scale DPDM. For the two- scale DPDM, reduced-order-homogenization (ROH) framework is employed with matrix phase modeled by the DPDM while the inclusion phase modeled by the CDM. The proposed DPDM is verified on several multi-layer laminates with various ply orientations including double-cantilever beam (DCB), end-notch-flexure (ENF), mixed-mode-bending (MMB), and three-point-bending (TPB). The simulation is executed in the platform of FOOF (Finite element solver based on Object-Oriented Fortran).
    [Show full text]
  • Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics
    Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics B. Cockburn School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, U.S.A. ABSTRACT The discontinuous Galerkin methods are locally conservative, high-order accurate, and robust methods that can easily handle elements of arbitrary shapes, irregular triangulations with hanging nodes, and polynomial approximations of different degrees in different elements. These properties, which render them ideal for hp-adaptivity in domains of complex geometry, have brought them to the main stream of computational fluid dynamics. In this paper, we study the properties of the DG methods as applied to awidevarietyofproblemsincludinglinear,symmetrichyperbolicsystems,theEulerequationsofgas dynamics, purely elliptic problems and the incompressible and compressible Navier-Stokes equations. In each instance, we discuss the main properties of the methods, display the mechanisms that make them work so well, and present numerical experiments showing their performance. key words: computational fluid dynamics, discontinuous finite elements 1. Introduction This paper is a short essay on discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods for fluid dynamics. The DG methods provide discontinuous approximations defined by using a Galerkin method element by element, the connection between the values of the approximation in different elements being established by the so-called numerical traces.Sincethemethodsuse discontinuous approximations, they can easily handle elements of arbitrary shapes, irregular triangulations with hanging nodes, and polynomial approximations of different degrees in different elements. The methods are thus ideally suited for hp-adaptivity in domains of complex geometry. Moreover, since they use a Galerkin method on each element, they can easily achieve high-order accuracy when the exact solution is smooth and high-resolution when it is not.
    [Show full text]
  • D7.5 Application Performance on Accelerators
    E-Infrastructures H2020-EINFRA-2014-2015 EINFRA-4-2014: Pan-European High Performance Computing Infrastructure and Services PRACE-4IP PRACE Fourth Implementation Phase Project Grant Agreement Number: EINFRA-653838 D7.5 Application performance on accelerators Final Version: 1.0 Author(s): Victor Cameo Ponz, CINES Date: 24.03.2017 D7.5 Application performance on accelerators Project and Deliverable Information Sheet PRACE Project Project Ref. №: EINFRA-653838 Project Title: PRACE Fourth Implementation Phase Project Project Web Site: http://www.prace-project.eu Deliverable ID: < D7.5> Deliverable Nature: <DOC_TYPE: Report / Other> Dissemination Level: Contractual Date of Delivery: PU 31 / 03 / 2017 Actual Date of Delivery: 31 / 03 / 2017 EC Project Officer: Leonardo Flores Añover * - The dissemination level are indicated as follows: PU – Public, CO – Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) CL – Classified, as referred to in Commission Decision 2991/844/EC. Document Control Sheet Title: Application performance on accelerators Document ID: D7.5 Version: <1.0> Status: Final Available at: http://www.prace-project.eu Software Tool: Microsoft Word 2010 File(s): D7.5 Written by: Victor Cameo Ponz, CINES Authorship Contributors: Adem Tekin, ITU Alan Grey, EPCC Andrew Emerson, CINECA Andrew Sunderland, STFC Arno Proeme, EPCC Charles Moulinec, STFC Dimitris Dellis, GRNET Fiona Reid, EPCC Gabriel Hautreux, INRIA Jacob Finkenrath, CyI James Clark, STFC Janko Strassburg, BSC Jorge Rodriguez, BSC Martti Louhivuori,
    [Show full text]
  • COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS (2º Cyy,Cle, Master of Science Degree)
    LECTURE (CU) COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS (2º cyy,cle, Master of Science Degree) Paulo Piloto Applied Mechanics Department School of Technology and Management Polytechnic Institute of Braganza CURRICULAR UNIT ‐ SYLLABUS • Subject: Computational Mechanics. • Course Speciality: Construction and Industrial Engineering. • Main Scientific area: Structures and Solid Mechanics (MSE). • Classes: 60 h/Semester: T (Theoretical) PL (Practice and Laboratory). • Cycle: 2º (Master degree of Science). • Year / Semester: 1º year/ 2nd Semester. • Learning outcomes and competences: – Understand and apply Finite Element Method formulation. – To be aware of beam and bar finite element formulation. – Understand and appl y two and three dimensional elasticity formulation. – Understand and apply plate and shell finite element formulation. – Understand and apply the finite element method and the numerical solutions. – Learn to use commercial finite element software. CURRICULAR UNIT ‐ SYLLABUS • Cour se conte nts ((ededExtended veesorsion) : – Chapter 1 ‐ Stages of the FEM. Bar finite element: • Introduction, advantages and applications of the finite element method (FEM). Basic concepts in matrix analysis of structures. Types of analysis. Fundamental steps in the FEM. Phases of the method. Mathematical model formulation. Discrete mathematical models. Static and dynamic formulations. Stiffness matrix and element assembly. Continuous mathematical models. Variational formulation. Bar element formulation. Matrix formulation of the element equations. Isoparametric formulation and numerical integration. – Chapter 2 ‐ Finite element formulation: • Standard flowchart of a finite element code. FEM general methodology. Shape functions. Interpolation of displacements. Displacement and strain fields. Stress field. Constitutive models. Solution of the FEM equations. FEM convergence requirements and error types. OiOptima lpoints for stress callilculations. – Chapter 3 – Beam finite elements: • Euler‐Bernoulli beam finite element.
    [Show full text]